风险管理习题集

更新时间: 试题数量: 购买人数: 提供作者:

有效期: 个月

章节介绍: 共有个章节

收藏
搜索
题库预览
TC is a travel company. Its head office is in Germany but it operates throughout Europe. It is a multi-million dollar business with thousands of employees at head office, in high-street branches throughout Europe, and within the hotels it sends customers to. TC has been in the world news recently due to a tragic event which occurred six years ago at one of the hotels it contracts with. Two children died in their hotel room due to a faulty boiler giving off poisonous carbon monoxide fumes while they slept. The parents of the children have spent the past six years fighting for compensation from TC The court case heard how TC contracted for rooms in the hotel. Part of the contract stated that the rooms should be safe for their customers. The hotel manager signed the agreement but made no effort to check each room for its safety. The parent's contract was with TC. TC s contract was with the hotel. The court case has now been decided and TC has been awarded $$3 million in compensation. The hotel had broken its contract by not making the rooms safe. The parents were awarded nothing by the court since their contract was with TC, who had done nothing contractually wrong. TC's Board has since decided to give the parents $$350,000 as a gesture of goodwill. Tc's actions have been criticised in the national press and on international television. TV coverage is showing parents packing carbon monoxide detectors in their suitcases prior to travelling to Europe. Interviews with parents have covered their disgust at Tc's actions No apology has ever been given by TC. Tc's share price has fallen by 10% over the past week. This morning Tc's Board announced their profits for the year and their CEO is to be awarded an $11 million bonus. Which THREE of the following courses of action are most appropriate for TC?
CHB is a CIMA qualified accountant. She decided to leave her job as a management accountant at XYZ plc to start her own business. As a dog lover she opened a dog grooming salon in a town near to her home She rented premises, just off the high street and near the local park, from the local council. The rent was advertised as $$4, 500 per annum but, due to he dilapidated state of the premises, she managed to negotiate a discount and paid only $$350 per month. The council required one months' rent to be paid up front in lieu of a bond. CHB employed two members of staff- one a qualified groomer, and one as a trainee groomer. The trainee groomer attended college on day per week, leaving the groomer to work alone that day. CHB managed the bookings, the bank account, wages, advertising and inventory. The business quickly established itself and word spread in the local area that the service provided was good. Many customers returned every six to eight weeks, happy with the service. However, the local area didn't appear to have sufficient dogs to maximise capacity, so CHB had to terminate the trainee's employment contract (within her three month probation period). The disgruntled trainee did not receive the news of losing her job wel and decided to take revenge by discrediting the business. Having copied the client details of some of the salons best customers she telephoned them at home and told them of terrible things that were done to their beloved pets while at the salon. These events were not true. By the end of the first nine months it became apparent that the business would do well for one individual i.e. the groomer (whose wages were fixed)but there was insufficient profit left over for CHB to take a salary. CHB decided to sell the business, which the groomer was more than happy to buy The agreed purchase price was S5, 000. This was paid immediately. The rental agreement between CHB and the council continued until the year end CHB still had to pretend that she was the business owner or she would be in breach of contract one of the contract terms was that there was to be no sub-letting. On two occasions when the council telephoned CHB'S home telephone number she pretended that she still ran the business. The groomer agreed with the charade. CHB continued to pay the rent to the council each month until the contract end, the groomer having paid CHB first. CHB paid the rent by debit card over the telephone. One month, towards the end of the rental contract, the council misallocated the rent received by them and allocated it in error to their rates department. The grooming business was rates exempt so the rates department returned the $350 to CHB. At the end of the year, after receiving the bond back, CHB immediately closed the grooming business bank account and changed her telephone number. The council have not been in touch about the missing months rent yet. Which THREE of the following ethical principles has CHB and her staff NOT met?